Bed-Stuy gentrification draft
What neighborhood we live in is one of the defining characteristics of our identities. It’s important enough to start fights over for some and, the social status associated with where we live is a point of great pride for others. Your neighborhood is the place where you rest and make many memories, as well as the place where you can make a family out of the community members. It goes without saying that where we live is very important to most people. Gentrification is when wealthier people move to a lower-income neighborhood, and the cost of living raises in the neighborhood, displacing original residents. Since we cherish the place where we live, an issue like gentrification more greatly wounds the inhabitants of these neighborhoods, making it a prevalent issue for many. Families that have lived in their homes for generations can no longer afford to do so. That’s why those living in the iconic neighborhood of Bedford-Stuyvesant, the location and inspiration of Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing and the birthplace of JAY-Z and the Biggie Smalls, have been deeply impacted by the rapid change of the historic neighborhood that they call home. The historically African American and low-income neighborhood perfectly encapsulates how gentrification has plagued many neighborhoods across the globe through the display of the rapid change of neighborhood in terms of infrastructure and community.
People’s experiences with gentrification and the rapid change resulting from it differ depending on who you ask. For people like those moving into the neighborhood, there is just opportunity resulting from gentrification. For example, one couple left DUMBO and purchased a townhouse in Bed-Stuy for $775,000, which has tripled in value. Soon after, friends of theirs who had lived in DUMBO as well attempted to move to Bed-Stuy, could not afford to do so (Gregor). Seeing how a home in their original neighborhood can cost upwards of $10,000,000, it’s safe to assume that many others in similar positions would do the same thing. Since many people want to move into the neighborhood there is also, an opportunity for outside investors, realtors, and landlords to sell more homes and for a higher price at that. Additionally, many business owners are attracted to the new crowd, which typically has more disposable income than original residents. Rows of restaurants and boutiques have opened up to cater to the untapped market of new clientele.
There are two sides to every coin so we must consider that while the increased property value has been an opportunity for financial gain for some, it has been a cause of great suffering for others. Ameena Walker perfectly states the issue when she explains “Many of the new residents are immigrants, white, or young, and are likely to have higher incomes than long-term residents, states the report. “Their arrival has put pressure on housing costs, making it increasingly less affordable for long-term residents, especially seniors, to remain in the neighborhood.” Rent rates have increased by 30 to 40 percent in the last few years (Gregor) and many elderly people rely on their pensions and government assistance to get by, so they don’t have the money to meet these rising prices. Those who have ownership are still being forced out in some way shape or form. People who can’t afford the maintenance of their homes are having their homes seized now. Realtors are also preying on the community, and convincing the elderly and those who have inherited generational homes into selling their properties to them. They rely on the fact that members of this community are typically more desperate for money or simply unaware of the true value of their homes.
Once people can no longer afford to these homes, the suffering doesn’t end. New York City’s public housing is crowded and underfunded as is, so for many people, that’s not a viable option. Some people move to other neighborhoods such as Brownsville, but once they move, rent prices there begin to go up (Corcoran). When that’s not an option people move to other states, and in worst case scenarios there are many people who end up homeless. Cate Corcoran goes even says “ Confusingly, Brownsville is cited in the report from the Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness as sending the most families into homeless shelters; Bed Stuy is №2. The report covers the years 2005 to 2010 and notes that during this period, Bed Stuy was in the very earliest stages of gentrification.” suggesting a strong correlation between the rampant gentrification and high homelessness rates. The question of whether or not gentrification leads to homelessness is one that should be seriously considered.
These events have understandably upset the original inhabitants of Bed-Stuy. They are forced to bear witness as the place they call home is being taken over as they are expelled from it. There have been instances where these people who are moving in are receiving greater government support than those who actually need it. Plans for bike paths and similar amenities are taking priority over projects meant to provide the necessary support for those in need. I believe that this can be explained by Jeremiah Moss, In his book where he states “. In 2003, the billionaire businessman described NYC as a “luxury product” that should brand itself like a private company, an outlook reflected in his administration’s approach to rezoning. “The rules were changed for thousands of city blocks. The changes prohibited building taller in certain areas, most of them majority white and high-income, while encouraging it in others.” Bed-Stuy is one of those neighborhoods that wasn’t protected by the government. Its gentrification was encouraged and, current policies in place further push original residents out of the neighborhood. This is done by developing large buildings and reserving a portion of them for affordable housing. However, when this happens a majority of the property is sold at market prices that are higher, and if only a portion of properties is affordable then there isn’t enough to accommodate everyone in need. The government’s support of Bed-Stuy is yet another constraint being placed upon the residents of the neighborhood, making it harder to recover.
Even though we mostly the financial impact that gentrification has on Bed-Stuy, it’s also important to consider the other ways in which gentrification impacts the neighborhood and its community. After all, a neighborhood isn’t just comprised of random buildings; it includes the people and culture as well. “There is no rent control for commercial spaces, and the rent is going to keep going up. So where your money is spent is important,” Goldberg says. With the rent of commercial spaces not being controlled, many local stores and businesses close due to things like gentrification. In those instances, I think that it’s important to consider what these spaces mean for the community as a whole. Every town has a beloved store that’s been there for decades. There could be an ice cream parlor that your parent went to when they were a kid that they now take you to. Spaces like these serve as memories of the history of neighborhoods, and it’s a shared object for the community to care for. Many of them have notable pasts that could easily be forgotten with fast construction, meant to fit whatever the current trend is. Places like the Apollo, which has housed many famous musicians and performers might go under and become forgotten, much like the story in Bed-Stuy where the Teddy Bear, possibly the most famous toy of all time, was invented. In the near future, cat filled bodegas, where you can order a classic bacon egg and cheese or a chopped cheese, might be replaced by a generic gourmet sandwich shop. We mustn’t lose these stores that give our neighborhoods life and personality while serving as a place for the community to congregate and be together.
Bedford-Stuyvesant isn’t the only neighborhood that’s been impacted by gentrification on both a cultural and financial level. Gentrification has presented itself as an issue that is present in many countries and cities, with varying causes and experiences depending on where you are.
For example, The Guardian mentions “ “While gentrification in Berlin is harder to recognise than in New York or London due to the low base from which rent prices started at, the percentage increases are extreme. The city has taken some steps to keep prices down (for instance by capping rent increases) but this has also ignited the popularity of Airbnb and similar sites, where renters can take advantage of these laws by paying low rents themselves, but making huge profits through short-term rentals. This then takes a number of apartments off the market, increasing rent prices and shortages.” Here we see a line drawn connecting gentrification in the city where I’m from with a city across the globe. Both are experiencing the same issue but, they are presenting themselves in different ways. It makes sense seeing how we have different housing laws, that would make it impossible to cause gentrification by changing rent prices at that space. There are also some rules that prevent tenants from renting their homes as air bnbs as well. If we look at a different country mentioned by the Guardian such as the Netherlands we can see how reactions to gentrification differ. This is shown when the article states “ I can’t believe what Amsterdam has become, it was very different 10 years ago (I’ve lived here for 22 years). Generally rent is easier to control with rent caps than housing prices, so this ideal of having property should be discouraged. We have a great tradition of social housing corporations in the Netherlands — some cities had 50% social housing. Now the whole way of thinking is about extracting money, not creating communities. When prices go up, they say ‘the market is doing well’. When scarcity is applauded, that is very wrong.” (Pieter Voogt)”. Here we can see how drastically different people’s reactions to gentrification is in America versus some other countries. Here, gentrification is seen as a negative thing, where we focus more on the displacement of people and their suffering rather than, a growing market and certain benefits such as increased safety. Even though we preach about how gentrification is a bad thing, many people, the government included, encourage it in secrecy. In the Netherlands, the government more openly disregards the homeless and those who have suffered due to gentrification, but members of society discourage property ownership and mention how some cities had 50% social housing, which would not fly over well with people in America. You would be hated by many and labeled as a communist. We in America are also much more money driven, so while some citizens in the Netherlands see the behavior as new and appalling, it’s something that we’ve always known.
